Conversations with Fireies:

A Case Study of Mimicry and Defense

by
Lisa Carloye
Biology Department
Elon University

Moving In
Joe sighed as he sank into the overstuffed chair in what had once been the library of Dr. James E. Lloyd, a
former entomology professor at Cornell University. Joe had graduated from college in May and was excited
to begin his new life as a graduate student in entomology. His new apartment was in the old house that had
belonged to Dr. Lloyd, and there had been plenty of cleaning to do.
It was raining outside and he didnt feel like moving, so Joe decided to relax and take a peek at the old, tattered
eld notebook he had found behind a pile of junk in the garage. He settled in and opened the notebook to reveal
the long-hand scribbling from long ago.
13 June 1963. Fife, Goochland County, Virginia, read the rst entry. Walking through a grassy eld at dusk
with a ashlight in hand, Dr. Lloyd had been hunting reies that warm, humid June night.
Joes interest was piqued. He thought reies sounded interesting and that it must have been fun to tromp
around in the eld studying them. He wouldnt mind doing some research on the natural history of such magical
creatures. Intrigued, Joe continued reading:
13 June 1963. Fife, Goochland County, Virginia.
While searching in the site of Photinus ignites, I received a single-ash response to a quick ash
of the ashlight after a delay of 5.5 seconds at 14C. This is the delay time and ash of P. ignites
females.
Joe sat up straighter in his chair. Had he read that right? Did that mean what he thought it meant? Had Dr. Lloyd
talked to the rey? Joe knew that males ash their lights in a species-specic pattern as they y around to
attract mates. He also knew that females of the same species respond with a ash pattern of their own from their
perches in the grass, thus alerting males to their presence and willingness to mate.
Joe mused that if it were true that the delay time and ash pattern were species-specic, then Dr. Lloyd had not
only called to the rey, but he had called specically to the female of that particular species! Dr. Lloyd was
an entomological Dr. Doolittle!
Joes mind was tired but alert, and he wondered if the males and females of the same species have the same
ash pattern. He was intrigued, but awfully sleepy. He looked at his watch and, seeing it was after midnight,
decided it was time to head to bed. He put the notebook on the table, still musing about talking to reies. He
didnt notice the next sentence of Dr. Lloyds faded entry:
When collected after several more similar ash responses, this female was found to be Photuris.

Question
1. What does this last sentence in the notebook tell you about the reies that Dr. Lloyd was observing?

Two Weeks Later

It had been a long but exciting two weeks as a new graduate student. Even though it was Friday night, Joe
decided to spend a quiet night at home, with his mind back in 1963 with Dr. Lloyd and his reies. He settled
into the overstuffed chair by the window and opened the tattered eld notebook. As the light faded outside, his
attention was caught by the following entry:
24 July 1963. Red Hills State Park. Lawrence County, Illinois.
During the early period of activity of Photinus pyralis I located a Photuris female in a P. pyralis
site by her ash, given 2.2 seconds after a ash from my ashlight at 21C. This is the time delay
my colleague Buck found for P. pyralis.
Joe rubbed his eyes hard and looked at the entry again. Had he read it wrong? No, P. pyralis was a species in the
genus Photinus, but the female Dr. Lloyd had found using the Photinus pyralis ash pattern was a female of the
genus Photuris. Thats what it said all right.
That doesnt make sense, Joe said aloud. I thought I read last time that the ash pattern was species specic.
Whats a Photurus female doing responding to a Photinus signal? He turned the page and found the following
entry:
24 May 1964. Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida.
In the site of a large population of a species in the Photinus collustrans complex, two Photuris
females repeatedly answered my single ash with a single long pulse, 1 second in duration,
after a delay of about 1 second (the ash-and-delay-characteristics of this Photinus species). No
Photuris males were seen.
Joe thought things were getting stranger still. What were females doing responding as if they were a different
species? Was Dr. Lloyd seeing things? Joe turned out the light and went to bed.

Three Months Later

It was raining again, and Joe felt depressed and discouraged. He had been working on his own research for
three months, but so far none of his experiments had been successful. He decided to visit with Dr. Lloyd and his
troublesome research. Maybe the reies would cheer him up on this dreary evening. He turned to the following
entry:
6 April 1965. Gainesville, Florida.
The ash pattern of males in one species of the Photinus consanguineus complex consists of two
short pulses separated by about 2 seconds. This phrase is repeated every 4 to 7 seconds. While
searching for females I received a response from the direction of a low weed along a stream. The
ash appeared greener and brighter than usual, and upon investigation I found a large (14-mm)
black Photuris female. One 11-mm black Photuris male was later caught which emitted single,
ragged, ickering ashes at intervals from 3 to 5 seconds in duration.
I watched this female for the next half hour, and during that time she responded to 12 passing
males of the Photinus species with a single-ash response similar to that of the females of this
speciesa single pulse about 1 second after the second male pulse. All of these males were at
least partially attracted to her. One ew into the stream. Two ew into the grass below her and

then she stopped answering them; presumably she couldnt see their ashes. Eight of the males
were attracted to within 1 meter of her and then she stopped answering them.
While answering, she would occasionally ash after the rst male pulse and then again after the
second pulse. Usually she answered only after the second pulse. I also noted that, as the males
neared her, she greatly reduced the intensity of her ashes. The last male attracted, after three or
four ash exchanges, landed about 7 cm from her. After another ash sequence I turned on my
light and found him 15 cm from her. Following the next ash exchange, after a pause of 10 to 15
seconds, I checked and found she was clasping him and chewing on him!
Joes eyes lit up as bright as a rey. He thought he saw what was going on, and if he were right, it would
be the coolest thing he had learned about insects yet! And if those reies were doing what he thought they
were doing, he had an awful lot to learn about how their behavior had evolved, and why they were doing it.
He decided to see if there was more information on this in the library because surely there were unanswered
questions. Maybe he could dump his research project and revive Dr. Lloyds research.

More Questions
2. What further research questions regarding the behavior of the Photuris females are raised by these observations?
3. Propose two hypotheses explaining how this behavior might be advantageous to the Photuris females.
4. Design an experiment to test one of your hypotheses. Be sure to identify your dependent and independent
variables and control treatment.

References
Lloyd, J.E. 1965. Aggressive mimicry in Photuris: Firey Femmes Fatales. Science 149 (3684): 653654.

Date Posted: 03/26/04 nas; last revised 12/26/04 nas.

Originally published at http://www.sciencecases.org/reies/reies.asp
Copyright 19992004 by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. Please see our usage guidelines, which outline
our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this work.